Attorney Hatfield's Response to GA Secretary of State about Judge Malihi's Erroneous Decision

Obama Release Your Records ^ | Tuesday, February 7, 2012; 5:14 AM

[Red Steel]

Attorney Mark Hatfield's Response to Georgia Secretary of State

Brian Kemp About Judge Malihi's Erroneous Decision

Article II Super PAC Email

Greetings,

Kevin Powell and Carl Swensson's counsel, Mark Hatfield, early this morning sent his response to judicial errors of fact and law to Georgia's Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, in response to Judge Michael Malihi's decision in the Georgia ballot challenge.

Click this link to read Attorney Hatfield's response - http://www.art2superpac.com/georgiaballot.html

Below is the ending portion of Attorney Hatfield's 6-page rebuttal letter to the Georgia Secretary of State. Read the whole letter!

"Please note that the foregoing cited errors, omissions, and flaws in Judge Malihi's "Decision" are not intended to be exhaustive, and Plaintiffs specifically reserve the right to raise other claims of error hereafter.

Mr. Secretary, as you deliberate on your final determination of Defendant Obama's qualifications to seek and hold office, I am requesting, on behalf of my clients, that you consider the posture of these matters. Defendant Obama has initiated the submission of his name as a candidate to be listed on the Georgia Democratic Presidential Ballot. Likewise, in accordance with their rights under Georgia law, my clients have raised a challenge to the Defendant's qualifications as a "natural born Citizen" pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution. The Defendant and his lawyer tried, unsuccessfully, to have my clients' challenges dismissed. The Defendant was then legally served with a Notice to Produce, requiring him to appear at trial and to bring certain documents and items of evidence with him. The Defendant did not object. When the time for trial was imminent, the Defendant's lawyer wrote a letter to you in which he boldly criticized and attacked the judge and in which he stated that he and his client were refusing to come to court. The day of trial, after you warned him that his failure to appear would be at his own peril, the Defendant and his lawyer nevertheless failed to appear for court and failed to comply with the Plaintiffs' valid Notice to Produce. The Defendant thus not only presented no evidence of his own, but he failed to produce significant pieces of evidence to which Plaintiffs were legally entitled. Inexplicably, Judge Malihi, after verbally acknowledging Plaintiffs' entitlement to a "default judgment," then entered an order fully favorable to the recalcitrant Defendant, and to top it off, the judge refused to even acknowledge Plaintiffs' attempts to have Defendant held accountable for his purposefully contemptuous behavior in ignoring Plaintiffs' Notice to Produce.

Doesn't this result sound unreasonable? Doesn't this result appear on its face unfair? Doesn't this result in fact suggest that the Defendant is above the law?

Mr. Secretary, I am respectfully requesting on behalf of my clients that you render a decision in this matter that treats Defendant Obama no different than any other candidate seeking access to the Georgia ballot who fails and refuses to present evidence of his or her qualifications for holding office and who disregards the authority of our judiciary. I request that my clients' challenges to Defendant Obama's qualifications be sustained and upheld.

Finally, in view of the rapidly approaching Presidential Preference Primary in Georgia on March 6, 2012, I respectfully request that you enter a decision in these matters on an expedited basis."

READ THE FULL LETTER DEBUNKING THE DECISION BY JUDGE MALIHI HERE. IT ALSO DEBUNKS CLAIMS MADE BY OTHERS.

Note: An Article II Legal Defense Fund has been established to support legal actions to help reinstate a Constitutional Presidency, per Article II, Section 1. These actions may include civil or criminal complaints, lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions, including, but not limited to: direct eligibility challenges, ballot challenges, indirect suits against third parties, which would seek to clarify eligibility, or inhibit parties from supporting actions that benefit ineligible candidates and/or officials.

[Red Steel]

You may wish to read Professor of Law Polly Price's article, "Natural Law and Birthright Citizenship in Calvin's Case (1608)"


Oh but the Founders didn't go with any English thoughts about English birthright citizenship statutes or Calvin Case or English Common law as to their intent behind the natural born citizen clause written in the US Constitution as they were believers of the Law of Nations written by Vattel.

James Madison wrote these notes seen below in 1830 about the Constitutional Convention of 1787. You'll notice in the red rectangular box, the number "3. Letters & writings constitutional"

What's the first phrase you see after the "Letters & writings constitutional" there Foggy?

Yes, we all see it's the "Law of Nations"

We also see nothing, no, nada, zip, zero, nor hide nor hair of any English Common law written, and of course nothing there about "Natural Law and Birthright Citizenship in Calvin's Case (1608)." There is no connection whatsoever of Calvin Case, but again we all do see the major driving force behind the US Constitution which was the Law of Nations.

[bushpilot1]

“Natural Law and Birthright Citizenship in Calvin’s Case (1608)”

Cannot locate this document in the Journals of the Continental Congress.

You guys use to this say this about Vattel. But we know this is a lie the fogbow and Dr.Fraud fabricated.

Vattel is listed and not under Swiss.

Can you tell us where this document is located in the Journals referenced above?

[jaydee770]

>>... It takes gross revisionism to suggest that a 1797 book guided the document written in 1787...<<

And it takes an inane, pedantic idiot to suggest that the founders intended to allow someone subsequently born with multi-citizenship to qualify as a candidate for the office of President. The intent was clear in Art. II when they used the carefully considered terminology, “Natural-Born-Citizen” — not “subject”, nor “naturalized, nor ambiguous “citizen” with no other qualifier. To even attempt to suggest otherwise invalidates your point of view and proves your malfeasance and gross intellectual dishonesty. There is nothing you or any other black-robed scoundrel or politi-slut can do or say to change that original intent. Sorry.

[philman_36]

I really dislike when portions of what is said is left off.

Plaintiff Welden has already stipulated that the Defendant was born in Hawaii, that the Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and that the Defendant was Constitutionally-qualified to serve as a U.S. Senator. See Welden Opp. Mtn. Dismiss at 8-9. The other Plaintiffs in the consolidated cases contest all these facts.
Plaintiff Welden makes no assertion regarding the Defendant’s passports, or social security number, or any other fact related to the Defendant, with the one exception of the fact that the Defendant’s father was not a U.S. citizen.
If you can't see why each of these cases should have been decided separately, as one Plaintiff's counsel had been informed they would be, then I simply can't help you.

@Mark Hatfield response to Kemp Decision
Initially, I would note that although Judge Malihi ordered my clients' cases severed, as a unit, from the cases of Plaintiffs Welden; Farrar; Lax; Judy; Malaren; and Roth, and although Judge Malihi conducted a separate hearing as to my clients' cases as requested, he nevertheless erroneously issued a single "Decision" applicable to all of the Plaintiffs' cases, despite the fact that the evidence; testimony; and legal argument advanced by my clients differed from that offered by the other Plaintiffs.

Why is hard to understand why he would rule that Obama was born in Hawaii?
He didn't "rule" that he was born in Hawaii, he "considered" that he was born in Hawaii.

[Mr Rogers]

“they used the carefully considered terminology, “Natural-Born-Citizen””

Yes...echoing the terminology used for 150+ years before them, with a meaning that was known to all Founders and all the new states.

Remember, in the first draft of the Constitution, NATURALIZED citizens were allowed to be President...NBC tightened it, requiring someone born in the USA.

[philman_36]

If I might ask something of you two in an attempt to clear this up...
When you say, MHGinTN, that @There are at least three types of citizen for the U.S.: naturalized, native by being born on American soil, and Natural Born... are you referring to someone like the American Indians who reside on reservations?

[philman_36]

Perhaps it would behoove you to read Tucker's @conclusions in
"OF THE UNWRITTEN, OR COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND; AND ITS INTRODUCTION INTO, AND AUTHORITY WITHIN THE UNITED AMERICAN STATES."

[philman_36]

Will you recall this reply of yours after you read Tucker’s conclusions?

[philman_36]

Perhaps it would behoove you to read Tucker’s conclusions I linked to above as well.

[Mr Rogers]

No, because we are not discussing if English common law applies to the USA. It does not.

However, English common law DID provide the language of law for the Founders. Their understanding of what a legal term meant was shaped by living under and using English common law every day of their lives.

They could have written, “born of citizen parents” instead of “natural born citizen”, and everyone would agree they were following Vattel. Or they could have required the President be a NATIVE, which would probably mean they were following Vattel. But instead, they used a term that all of them were well familiar with, having used it all their lives. And the meaning of that term is found by understanding the common law MEANING of NBS.

As WKA put it:

“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:

There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

[philman_36]

However, English common law DID provide the language of law for the Founders.
A very telling comment.

In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.

The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

Principles and application. I can understand your confusion.
IMO your principles are suspect and your application of them is obvious.

[philman_36]

Perhaps, then, in light of your previous comment, @Justice Scalia's comments would be better suited.

[philman_36]

The phrase "the right to be confronted with witnesses against him" -- what did confrontation consist of in England?

As you say, "...English common law DID provide the language of law for the Founders."
Beyond that, the language of law, our common law became uniquely American.

[philman_36]

Have a cup. It's on me.

[MHGinTN]

Draw two large circles. In one circle write ‘naturalized’; caption the second circle ‘Native born’. Inside the second circle draw two smaller circles; label one circle native born by parent or parents being citizens at child’s birth; the other label native born by being born on American soil. Now, where the first smaller circle and the second smaller circle overlap to create a third area, label that smallest area Natural Born citizenship. The question of Indian citizenship has been dealt with beyond the necessary, so I will not be drawn into another useless discussion for the amusement of anti-birther obamanoids reading along.

[philman_36]

I was just trying to help others come to a fuller understanding as others have endeavored to help me.
So I beg your pardon and I'll leave it at that.

[Mr Rogers]

“As you say, “...English common law DID provide the language of law for the Founders.”

Correct. So if you want to know what is meant by a legal term they used, see what it had meant all of their lives under English common law. In this case, it means that a NBC can have alien parents, if born in the USA.

[MHGinTN]

Reservations are not strictly ‘American soil’. The fourteenth amendment granted citizenship to people living on American soil and many, perhaps most, born and living on American. There are exclusionary terms in the Amendments which cover ALL the classes of citizen and non-citizenship, if applied with wisdom and reference to the intent of the founders. Obamanoid agitprops will argue any niggling point to try and divert from common sense.

[philman_36]

You have vociferously argued month after month that @Vattel had nothing to do with US law on citizenship.
You say that English common law doesn't apply @No, because we are not discussing if English common law applies to the USA. It does not. and on that we agree.

As indicated by your first reply which I linked to you seem unable to grasp the concept that Vattel was adopted into American common law as you believe that it merely covers international law. On that I disagree.

@US law has never followed Vattel on citizenship, nor would Vattel have expected it to. Vattel wrote on international law, and made the point that what he was writing didn’t hold true in 1758 England.
Did Vattel not apply to England since England already had a body of law?

The common law of America is uniquely American and the Founding Fathers did indeed use Vattel to form our common law.

[philman_36]

I think you should read my reply at 119 and then get back to me.